Verbeem

The plaintiff, Sunsource Grids Inc., brought an action against the University of Windsor for $40 million in damages, alleging breach of a research agreement, misrepresentation, and intentional interference with economic relations regarding the development of a solar PV switch technology.

The University counterclaimed for breach of contract due to the plaintiff's failure to provide required in-kind contributions.

Following a 50-day trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that the University did not breach the agreement or act in bad faith.

The court held that the plaintiff's failure to supply necessary components was a condition precedent that excused the University's inability to deliver a hardware prototype.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claimed damages for loss of future profits were too remote, excluded by the contract's consequential damages clause, and based on a technology that was not commercially viable.

The University's counterclaim was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $21,800 for its breach of contract.

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, brought an action for wrongful dismissal against the defendants, a restaurant corporation and its majority financial backer.

The wife also claimed a remedy for shareholder oppression under s. 248 of the OBCA.

The court found that the wife was not expressly or constructively dismissed, but rather had resigned from her employment.

The husband's wrongful dismissal claim was also dismissed as he had received adequate payment in lieu of notice.

On the oppression claim, the court found that the defendants' failure to provide annual audited financial statements and the majority backer's post-litigation correspondence violated the wife's reasonable expectations as a shareholder.

The court ordered the purchase of the wife's shares, valuing them at $1.00 as of the date of the original oppressive conduct in 2010, given the corporation's significant debt at that time.

Claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation were dismissed, as was the defendants' counterclaim for defamation.

The plaintiff purchased a landlocked commercial property with the intention of developing it.

The property abutted a Home Depot, which had a site plan control agreement with the City requiring it to negotiate a reciprocal access agreement with the abutting property owner if required.

The plaintiff sued the City and Home Depot, alleging they frustrated its development by delaying or denying access, claiming negligence, nuisance, breach of contract, and proprietary estoppel.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the action, finding that many of the plaintiff's claims were not properly pleaded, the City owed no duty of care to preserve access, no negligent misrepresentations were made, and Home Depot acted in good faith in negotiating the access agreement, which was inherently complex and conditional.

The plaintiffs obtained a $2 million judgment against an at-fault driver and vehicle owner for a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs then brought an action against the defendant insurer under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act, arguing the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident.

The defendant insurer argued it had validly rescinded the insurance contract ab initio due to material misrepresentations in the application, two months prior to the accident.

The court held that the Insurance Act does not displace an insurer's common law right to rescind a contract for material misrepresentation.

The court found the insurer validly rescinded the contract before the accident occurred, meaning there was no contract providing indemnity at the time of the loss.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed.

The representative plaintiffs moved for approval of a $2.375 million settlement in a class action concerning the under-dosing of chemotherapy drugs at several hospitals.

The defendants, who supplied and administered the drugs, denied liability, arguing there was no evidence of clinical impact on patient outcomes and that the plaintiffs' psychological harm did not meet the legal threshold for a recognizable psychiatric illness.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the significant litigation risks, the lack of evidence showing clinical harm, and the recommendations of experienced class counsel.

The court also approved class counsel's requested fees of $400,000.

The Belleville police defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against them for negligent investigation, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, and Charter breaches.

The plaintiffs had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after picking up merchandise from Lowe's that was ordered using fraudulent credit cards.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims for false arrest and Charter breaches were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Furthermore, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the negligent investigation claim, as the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges and met the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.